Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Oliver Stone's World Trade Center Reviewed

As has pretty consistently been reported, this is shaping up to be a pretty good flick. There is zero indication in the review that there's going to be anything for the CT crowd (although they will probably mutter at any explosions).

Because of its scope, "World Trade Center" is grander than "United 93" and perhaps has some loftier cinematic aspirations. And as much as it's all about the real men and women whose acts of courage nearly got them killed that day, "World Trade Center" is nonetheless an Oliver Stone film through and through.

What Stone has done is base his movie on the stories of two Port Authority policemen who went into Tower 2 of the World Trade Center too late and with little information. The building collapsed on them, burying them and their colleagues.

Only 20 people were pulled from the rubble alive. John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno — played respectively by Nicolas Cage and Michael Pena — were numbers 18 and 19.


World Trade Center debuts in about four weeks.

12 Comments:

At 11 July, 2006 19:52, Blogger Murdervillage said...

The movie opens on August 9, and the 911truth.org people are calling for "civil disobedience" protests at movie theaters, i.e. getting arrested.

They can't arrest the truth!

 
At 11 July, 2006 20:03, Blogger default.xbe said...

i think we shoudl call for counter protests, distribute LC veiwers guide and other information, lol

 
At 11 July, 2006 20:13, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like, hey man, I mean, somebody help me out here, I can't remember, I mean, a FICTIONAL film is where you make stuff up, and tell a story, and like a non -fictional film, is like a documentary where you present facts, to tell the story, right?

So, like Loose Change is like a fictional film, except were it isn't?

 
At 12 July, 2006 03:56, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

I encourage the counter-protests against the "Troofers". I only wish I could be there myself. Of course I can at least be happy that I live in a country with no "troofers". I might see that WTC movie or U93.

 
At 12 July, 2006 05:58, Blogger Cassiopeia said...

I've got to say I'm pretty relieved that it appears Stone has stuck to the facts this time. After the amount of crud that was in 'JFK' i'd have thought he was a prime candidate for making a CT based movie.

 
At 12 July, 2006 06:17, Blogger undense said...

With JFK Stone could get away with the CT stuff. He probably considered the 9/11 CTs and subsequently figured that even he wasn't talented enough to convince people of something that stupid.

 
At 12 July, 2006 06:26, Blogger Cassiopeia said...

Heh, yes there's that coupled with the fact that any major movie studio would be committing commercial suicide by getting into bed with the nutjobs right now. Give it ten years or so and we'll see.

 
At 12 July, 2006 07:43, Blogger debunking911 said...

I was amazed to find some of the shots in the film point out some of the things I've been saying on my site. For instance, if you watch the trailer you will see "Flashes" as the lighting shorts above their head. You will see the core columns pile drive into the ground. You will see B7 with an 18 story hole.

 
At 12 July, 2006 08:14, Blogger Cassiopeia said...

So what you're saying is Oliver Stone is part of the conspiracy? Oliver Stone, CIA shill. Who knew?

 
At 12 July, 2006 12:43, Blogger debunking911 said...

Why do you think he knows so much about JFK?

 
At 12 July, 2006 19:43, Blogger Falco98 said...

JFK might be easily debunked by the forensics, but purely in terms of its feasibility as a conspiracy in general, it's downright concrete when compared to 9/11: the number of people required to be knowing and complicit is finite, and provably much smaller (as small, even, as 2 or 3). Stone is probably smart enough to see this clearly and not fall into the pit of Looserdom.

 
At 12 July, 2006 20:59, Blogger shawn said...

Well in Stone's film he had a helluva lot of people involved in the conspiracy.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home